- No Recommendations yet - go add some!
- A very interesting show that deserves a follow up. Two other comments... strict fundamentalist expressions of "science" have their place, but are hardly a universal template for discernment. I am not advocating psuedo or junk science, but more of the need to embrace the noetic variety. There are perfectly valid and useful explorations noetic sciences offer, and perfectly obvious limitations in rabid allegiance to the scientific method.
Second, the definition of "science" could be an entire show... not to discredit the value we have received, but to prepare for a more aware, observed, and media/data intensive future. How can things like distributed processing be harnessed for greater good? Is science scalable? What value is there in things on the edge or outside science?
There are effects that are real and even intended that science as rigidly defined can do nothing with. The very resistance to believing things could be a certain way is not only a dangerous bias, but is routinely exploited for nefarious ends. Even things as sensible as the precautionary principle would be hamstrung by purists. Context is everything.
